To Arrogate to Castrate

Mention castration to a group of six men, and you’ll get a dozen puns back. A history professor of mine described the practice as a “short cut to success” for Tang Dynasty civil servants. A message board I used to haunt carried a news item about a Welshman who de-knackered himself, apparently to settle a bet on the outcome of a soccer match; within seconds, five male respondents posted back variations on, “Wow, that really took some balls!” or “He must have been nuts!” (I suggested he’d been feeling testy that morning.)

If there’s a woman in the crowd, she’ll roll her eyes, remembering how her friend quietly endured a hysterectomy and wondering why we don’t just grow up. Well, this kind of whistling past the graveyard, giggling at our own worst fear, is our version of adulthood — take it or leave it.

I mention this now because there may soon be a new wave of horror to pre-empt. Dutch Justice Minister Ivo Opstelten has sworn to investigate allegations that Church authorities in the Netherlands ordered boys in their care to be castrated in hope of curing their homosexual inclinations. Ten alleged victims have already told their stories to the NRC Handelsblad; one, Henk Heithuis, said the operation also served as his punishment for telling police a priest had abused him sexually. Radio Netherlands, claiming to have the minutes of meetings where “directors of Catholic institutions” discussed the castrations in the presence of government officials, is reporting that nobody saw any reason to notify the victims’ parents.

An unkindly cut indeed, that. Or as the Italians like to say, ma, che palle! (I understand this to mean, very roughly, “This present situation so vexes me that I feel like I’m wearing a millstone around my scrotum.”)

With the Obama administration in a Mexican standoff with the bishops over health care, people are being forced to ask themselves who runs things better — Church or state? We’ve heard the anti-statist case. The idea that provision of contraception and abortion should be considered a plus in an applicant for a government subsidy is being denounced as anti-Catholicism, plain and simple. Last month, referring to the health care mandate, George Weigel warned: “It’s all about Leviathan as the enforcer of the sexual revolution.” Last week, he broadly invited comparison between the Affordable Care Act and the Polish government’s 1953 claim on the right to appoint and depose Catholic bishops. Slopes everywhere are getting a good rhetorical greasing.

Well, I’ll play the game a little more fairly than that. Even in America, the state has interfered with the reproductive organs of plenty of non-consenting citizens. Mainly, it’s done so in the name of eugenics, which the Church deplores. In the 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court upheld a Virgina state law requiring the sterilization of the mentally retarded. The statute remained on the books until 1974; the last forced sterilization took place in Oregon, seven years later. Unlike many states, which sterilized men by removing the vas deferens, Oregon preferred full castration — to punish gays, as well as to protect the gene pool.

At this point, I don’t think either side could reasonably stir the mob by crying, “THEY’RE COMING FOR YOUR TESTICLES!” Still, it might suit both to reflect that, in the not-so-distant past, they did come for people’s testicles. The reasons and legal contexts may have differed, but the condition common to them all was a ruthlessness that led these institutions to promote their perceived interests at the expense of the most vulnerable individuals in their care. Let Church and state take these cases as their cue, as they trade insult and accusation, to walk humbly, or perhaps, to hang low.

Clerical Narcissism: Myth or Mess?


“Narcissist” is the new n-word. Unmatched for versatility, it can mean everything from “won’t text me back” to “queer as a three-dollar bill.” Once upon a time, disagreeable people could hope to be labeled neurotics or paranoiacs; no longer. Members of my generation are fully committed to watching each other watch themselves.

Just recently, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny deployed the term against the Vatican. Referring to a letter from the Holy See to the bishop of Cloyne, purportedly relieving him of the obligation to inform police of sex abuse allegations made against priests, Kenny thundered against the “dysfunction, disconnection, elitism and the narcissism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day.”

On one level, Kenny’s meaning is perfectly obvious. The Vatican, by his lights, was determined to protect its own interests at society’s expense. That kind of narcissism is the narcissism of Goldman Sachs, Union Carbide and the Nixon administration.

But coupled with the word “elitism,“ it seems to hint at something more serious. Russell Shaw spells it out fully when he defines “clericalism” as “an elitist mindset, together with structures and patterns of behavior corresponding to it, which takes it for granted that clerics—in the Catholic context, mainly bishops and priests—are intrinsically superior to the other members of the Church and deserve automatic deference.”

To me, anyway, the conviction that some people simply count more than others would seem a much profounder kind of narcissism. At some point during his adventures, Huck Finn invents a story about riverboating accident. When his audience, a kindhearted and credulous woman, asks whether anyone was hurt, he answers, “No’m. Killed a nigger.” That’s about as stark — and in a grim way, as funny — a portrayal of the mentality as you’ll ever find.

But according to some observers, it gets worse — much worse. Last year, James Carroll argued that certain disciplines governing the priesthood — in particular mandatory celibacy — fertilize the individual personality for the growth of narcissistic traits. He writes: “immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality — such all-too-common characteristics of today’s Catholic clergy are directly tied to the inhuman asexuality that is put before them as an ideal.”

Since Carroll actually was a priest — in the Congregation of St. Paul, an order for which I have a very high regard — I have to wonder whether there‘s any truth in what he says. I‘m not taking a position against celibacy, or for that matter, in favor of it. But I am curious to know whether a certain excessive self-regard might be a priestly occupational hazard.

This sort of question is bound to elicit defensive responses, and for good reason: nobody wants to hear, “You’re all a bunch of preening jerks” much less “you’re all a bunch of sex abuse abettors.” Before anyone imagines I’m saying either, let me throw in couple of qualifiers. First, where priests are concerned, imposing any collective sense of guilt is the very last thing I want to do. The mistakes of the institutional Church have much less interest for me than the experience of the individual priest, whom I take on faith to be an essentially good guy who wants only to do right. If any Church norms or practices do, in fact, encourage priests to adopt a narcissistic self-concept, I am assuming they adopt it unwittingly and probably unwillingly.

Second, narcissism happens to the best of us. Every group of professionals with arcane knowledge and its own old-boy network runs a danger of developing a pathologically inflated opinion of itself and the perks it deserves. Surgeons are often said — in particular by nurses — to believe in their own divinity. Where to start with lawyers? My own hands are far from clean here. After I’d worked for just as short time as a loan officer, it felt perfectly natural to think, “Gee, I hope this borrower is stupid enough to let me stack on the points” in almost those very words. When one borrower’s wife went into cardiac arrest, forcing him to cancel his signing, my only thought was, “Why me, O Lord?”

I’ll throw out another bone. I was once photographed between two people suffering from neurofibromatosis. When I saw the picture, all I could think was, “My God, I look awful.”

Third, I’m not asking out of rhetorical mock ignorance. I’m asking out of real ignorance. If it seems improbable that any fully functioning Catholic should know so little about the sacerdotal headspace, bear in mind that I entered the Church right in the middle of a vocations crisis. The priests in my orbit are few, and usually overworked. They don’t have time for much more than an after-Mass handshake, and there’s little to be learned from one of those. I know that Fr. Andrew Greeley and A.W. Richard Sipe have written extensively on the inner realities of the clerical life, but — inexcusably — I haven’t gotten around to reading them yet.

Instead, I go right to the source. To those of my readers who are priests and seminarians, I ask: does that tight collar sometimes make your head swell? If so, have you worked out some routine for getting back to normal? Remember, the Catholic Church is the only place on earth where people thank you for sharing and mean it.

Warning: This is a sensitive subject. There is to be no flamethrowing. Post anything obnoxious, and I will delete it. Protest, and I will ban you.

Buddhists Need Own Dallas Charter

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Buddhist monks are facing allegations of sex abuse; that monastic authorities have established no system for tracking the movements of the accused, and appear in some instances to be stonewalling investigators.

According to Meghan Twohey, in 2000, a 12-year-old girl accused a monk named Camnong Boa-Ubol of assaulting her during a “tutoring session” at Chicago’s Wat Dhammarang temple. Temple administrators sent her parents a letter, assuring them that Boa-Ubol had “accepted what he has done,” and would be banished to Thailand as punishment. Now, 11 years later, it’s emerged that Boa-Ubol simply moved to a temple in California. His Chicago superiors made no attempt to stop him, did not warn anyone in California of the charges against him, and hid the information from their own temple’s board of directors.

In Thai Therevada Buddhism, it seems, monastic life is loosely organized, with each temple operating as a law unto itself. At least according to the Tribune’s sources, there are no motherhouses, no provinicials and no dicasteries charged with investigating allegatoins against monks. Twohey reports: “Monks are viewed as free agents…Those found guilty of wrongdoing can pack a bag and move to another temple — much to the dismay of victims, law enforcement and other monks.”

Temple heads do, reportedly, have the authority to laicize monks, but they exercise that authority only under very narrowly defined circumstances. P. Bonshoo Sriburin, head of Wat Dhammarang, said he found no grounds for laicizing Boa-Ubol. “As long as we don’t know any sexual intercourse, we have no reason to charge anybody on that ground,” he said. “We were informed that he just touched body.”

It’s a grim business, and my own first impulse is to joke about it, grimly. I can picture Boa-Ubol pleading, “Don’t send me to Thailand! Anywhere but there!” like Br’er Rabbit before the briar patch. At this point, any Catholic can be allowed a certain rotten satisfaction in noting a sex scandal in someone else’s religion. But reading the Tribune piece does, I think, have a more serious and respectable purpose: the Therevada sex abuse crisis looks like a funhouse mirror of our own. Many of the same basic variables are in place, but in proportions distorted enough to make comparison fascinating and worthwhile.

Norms of investigation and dispute resolution alien to those of American legal system? Check? Lag in appreciating the harm of sexual assault on victim? Check. Failure to keep pace with the improvements in the status of children that have taken place in postwar America? Double check. There’s no definitive proof that temple authorities were paralyzed by fear of scandal, or that they extended a loyalty to fellow monks that they denied laypeople, but there’s certainly room between the lines to read one or the other or both.

Wincing and groaning in recognition yet? Well, knock it off, ’cause that part’s over. Now comes the fun part, the lording-it-over-the-other-guy and marking-signs-of-progress part. Unlike Therevada monks, our priests and religious are not free agents; instead, they’re subject to a form of well-regulated top-down management. Once disciplined, a Catholic cleric can’t simply turn in an application at another franchise. At best, he can jump ship to a schismatic sect, like a disgraced Grenadier Guardsman joining the French Foreign Legion. (Hopefully, he’ll have just as much fun.) If those in charge have not always been the wisest stewards of that splendid apparatus, at least nobody’s had to build it from scratch.

Not only do our Church leaders have the authority to keep order, they have an incentive. Whatever role ranking Therevada Buddhists play in Southeast Asian public life, they seem content to be invisible here. Our bishops strive to serve as prophetic voices, agents in the New Evangelization, shapers of public policy. To meet any of these goals, they first must prove themselves adequate babysitters. Partly toward this end, we’ve seen the introduction of safe-environment training programs and the constitution of diocesan review boards. Generally, these have failed to root out abusers only where they went un- or underutilized. An efficient, press-driven feedback loop now tends to reveal these oversights as folly. Where virtue pales as its own reward, an escape from nasty headlines should fill in nicely.

The Therevada establishment, such as it is has yet to issue a formal statement on this new media scrutiny. Hopefully, they’ll see it for what it is — a gift, in the form of a call to reform. No abbot has gone on record complaining about unfair treatment, which sounds like a good sign. Or it could be they’re still smarting over Kickboxer.